My submission for the Australian contribution to Paris UNFCCC

Just add your voice. (It appears to be still open, though that may change any minute). You don’t have to do a big document. My post on submissions was last week.

The Australian government website asks these questions:

Q.1 What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.

Q2. What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.

Australia would be more competitive economically by removing unnecessary restrictions on CO2. As the largest driest continent with vast arid zones, both our farmers and arid conservation areas benefit from extra atmospheric CO2.

Q3 Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why? We need to get the science right before we take any more expensive action.

For the sake of the environment, town-planning, and agriculture, the first and most important priority needs to be an accurate understanding of our climate so predictions start to be useful.

For thirty years climate scientists have failed to narrow the estimates of climate sensitivity, nor produce models that work on decadal, short term, global, or continental scales. No further investments should be made to mitigate “Climate change” until we understand the climate, and predictions are useful, and models validated. Australia should invest in broad ranging, creative research, seriously investigating potential natural cause of climate change. This research should be undertaken preferably with scientists from specialties with a proven track record of scientific achievement (ie. outside the current climate science specialty.)

Many problems are evident with the Australian BOM data sets. Like all important national financial and economic data, these need independent replication.

If it can’t be replicated — it isn’t science.
In medicine and the economy, independent audit and replication is standard.
It’s more funding for climate research — but better targeted than the current unproductive allocation.

The replication must be independent (not hand-picked, private forums by the BOM). Another whitewash will harden views rather than resolve them. Replication is a mere technical exercise, it works or it doesn’t; so why not get skeptics to do the replication? Then there will be no doubts about whether the independent auditors were really independent.

We also need better study of our historic records from the late 1800s. Stevenson screens were introduced across Australia during the twenty years before the BoM was formed (ahttp://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/the-mysterious-bom-disinterest-in-hot-historic-australian-stevenson-screen-temperatures/) . Why aren’t these records used in all the cities and sites that they can be? Surely we need to understand long term Australian climate variability to be able to predict and plan for the future.

We need an honest public debate on a level playing field rather than namecalling and advertising. Both sides of the debate should receive comparable funding (which would better represent the current views of the Australian population). At present, funding is one-sided and monopolistic. The study of natural causes is wholly inadequate, and the auditing of foreign committee reports is non-existent.

Australia should take a leading role in resolving the impasse and polarization of the scientific debate.

For the last twenty years, the IPCC and supporters have spent millions inundating the population with full gloss, flash adverts and catchy bumper stickers. The Rudd government spent $13.9 million on one advertising campaign “Think Climate, Think Change”. Despite this, the number of skeptics is growing — fully 53% of Australians are skeptical (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/australia-more-skeptics-than-believers-and-few-really-care-about-climate-change/). The debate is more polarised than ever, and the skeptics are often blamed for slowing action. Namecalling is rampant, and the use of “denier” is unscientific, inflammatory and baseless. It is an abuse of English. We need polite debate instead. Resolving the impasse, the stalemate, is the highest priority for the planet.

More advertising won’t change the trend, the issue has been marketed to death. What hasn’t been tried is the old fashioned, hard but honest way to resolve an issue — real public debate.

For links and information: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/the-simple-trick-to-solve-the-impasse-in-the-climate-debate-have-one-tell-the-australian-govt/

A trial without a defence is a sham.
Business without competition is a monopoly.
Science without debate is propaganda.

88 comments to My submission for the Australian contribution to Paris UNFCCC

Thanks Annie, submissions appear to be still open. I hadn’t realized it was just a four question survey that didn’t need any attachment. I encourage people to add their voice if the site will accept them.

Did so last week, but your answers, especially to Q3, were much better put than mine! Hope someone actually reads them, and I agree that the more people who reply , with logical, scientifically accurate responses, the better.

My greatest concern with these sort of government questionaires is that they will be vetted by a coterie of bolts-in-the-side-of-the-neck alarmist bureaucrats, who are trained to sniff out climate heresy.

As someone, who uses facts, science and politeness in the climate debate, you are the ultimate heretic. I doubt if Abbott has yet cleaned out more than a tiny fraction of the Augean Stable of Australia’s entrenched and bloated climate bureaucracy.

Consequently, your well argued submission seems doomed to end up in Special Bin 13; that’s the one with a label on the side which states: “Contents highly undesirable! Incinerate Immediately”.

First Name: xxxxxx
Last Name: xxxxxx
Position: xxxxxx
Phone: xxxxxx
Email: xxxxxxx
Address: xxxxxxx
==Submit your views==
What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed?
In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g.
1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why
the suggested target is preferred.:Australia’s response should be made temperature-contingent.
If the average temperature trend of UAH and RSS satellite series remains
below the central range of the current IPCC model projections by 2020,
clearly the only rational response is to have no target.
What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this
question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs,
business and on the environment.:Satellite images show that Australia and the planet are benefitting, i.e.
‘greening’, as a result of the measured increase in atmospheric
concentration of CO2.
On balance the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is a huge boon to the
biosphere.
The government mandated reallocation wealth from rational energy investments
to dead-end technologies has been a monstrous mistake and a burden on
consumers — madness for a country so fortunately rich in natural resources.
Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct
action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020
target and why? Except for further development of uranium deposits, Australia
should do nothing.
Do you wish to contribute any further information or ideas? No.
Do you wish to upload a supporting document? If yes, please upload your
supporting document below.:
I would like my submission to be made publicly available? Yes

Made my submission, that the whole thing is science nonsense. Ignoring the Federation drought. Homogenization, excision of significant data and adjustment of correct data. Then there is the very strong indication that 0.5C increase is purely instrument matching in the 1980/90s swap over inside the Stephenson boxes to electronics with higher resolution and much more. The coincidence is just too much. How do you match up two techologies which are so different in accuracy without giving such an effect?

Amazingly, the IPCC actually recognizes that the % of CO2 in the air is ultimately set by physics and water temperature, not man. They just argue that it takes hundreds of years to stabilize and go down. They are demonstrably wrong. They also recognize that the Greenhouse CO2 effect is nowhere near strong enough to produce warming, so it is about an unproven hypothesis about amplification. They even recognize that the world has not warmed at all in nearly 20 years, thanks to the information from satellites. You never know, the Greens might eventually recognize that everything which is Green is actually an inorganic Carbon compound made essentially from CO2 and water.

However for the $1Bn a day being wasted on 250,000 windmills, we could do so much. So I have suggested those things too, filling Lake Eyre, creating microclimates, using desalination plants to feed thirsty power stations with off peak power converting sea water, off shore ammonia power generation, micro refineries, more dams, irrigation and better water handling and conservation.

Thanks. I suppose I am starting to rant in frustration, but my physics is perfectly clear and unequivocal and I have written to all the usual suspects. No one has found fault with it. Frankly once you talk radiation, people tend to turn off.

The science fact is that there is (almost) no fossil fuel CO2 in the air. So why have carbon targets? It is all being hoovered quickly by rapid exchange with the oceans. Frankly if the exchange really took 80 years as the IPCC insist, we would have a lot of dead fish.

Possibly also no humans. Human embryos when developing show elementary gills. Human blood is basically salty ancient sea water or saline plus red blood cells floating around. You can work out when we left the ocean and unlike the whales, porpoises, manatees, seals did not wander back in. Watching seals is interesting because you can see the two legs with flippers, not one big flipper like a dolphin or shark. Also the mammal fluke is horizontal where the legs join where fish are vertical.

My point is that if the CO2 exchange had a half life of 80 years, so would O2. The seas would quickly become anaerobic morass of CO2 and no life. They would suffocate. The exchange must be very rapid near the surface with storms and waves and droplets. That is the interface. On a very flat, still day there is far less exchange as in a still pond or fish tank. Then the fish die. Exchange is so obviously very rapid, even absorbing most of the the CO2 in about say 25 years (3/4 of it). As well it is estimated that 50% of our O2 comes from photosynthesis in the oceans too. Vitamin A was an early chlorophyll and life started in the oceans, turning all our CO2 into O2. O2 breathers then appeared to harvest the energy, turning O2 back into CO2. That is the cycle of life. Pollution, apparently.

Please note that Dr Piotr Trêbicki latest study — that ABC quotes from — is not published yet. It has this note on it –

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record.

Genetic association between the gene Bdv1, which confers slow yellowing to barley yellow dwarf (BYD) in adult plants, and genes Lr34 and Yr18, which confer partial adult plant resistance to leaf rust and stripe rust, respectively, was investigated. Nearly 115 random F3 and F5 lines, derived from the crosses of susceptible cultivar Jupateco 73S with resistant (symptomatically tolerant for BYD) cultivars Jupateco 73R and Condor, and the parents were evaluated for reaction to the three diseases in separate experiments. Resistance to each disease in Jupateco 73R and Condor is conferred by a single gene

So the virus (Barley yellow dwarf virus; BYDV-PAV) that the good doctor tested against can actually help in staving-off the worst effects of other more deadly rusts and molds in some plants.

“Results
Crops grown under high CO2 gave, on average, about a 50% increase in yield. This increase occurred irrespective of the sowing time or year (Figure 3). The May to November rainfalls were a dry 148 mm in 2008 and a more normal 264 mm for 2009. The harvest index of these crops—the proportion of growth that goes to grain—was not reduced with high CO2 so the plants were actually operating more effi ciently with the extra carbon available to them in the atmosphere.
The yield response suggests that CO2 will help reduce the impact of higher temperatures and lower rainfalls, even in the low rainfall regions of Australia.

So if the yields are improved by “about a 50% increase” the virus would have to inflict a real term reduction of about a 50% to show any impact. This does not look likely with this virus.

So yes, ““CO2 is good for plants” is an oversimplification.” it should be “Overall CO2 is very good for plants”.

What was learned
At the individual scale, Awmack et al. report that “elevated CO2 and O3 did not significantly affect [aphid] growth rates, potential fecundity (embryo number) or offspring quality.” At the population scale, on the other hand, they found that “elevated O3 had a strong positive effect,” but that “elevated CO2 did not significantly affect aphid populations.”

In comparing their results with those of prior related studies, the three scientists report that “the responses of other aphid species to elevated CO2 or O3 are also complex.” In particular, they note that “tree-feeding aphids show few significant responses to elevated CO2 (Docherty et al., 1997), while crop-feeding species may respond positively (Awmack et al., 1997; Bezemer et al., 1998; Hughes and Bazzaz, 2001; Zhang et al., 2001; Stacey and Fellowes, 2002), negatively (Newman et al., 1999) or not at all (Hughes and Bazzaz, 2001), and the same species may show different responses on different host plant species (Awmack et al., 1997; Bezemer et al., 1999).”

What it means
In summarizing their observations, Awmack et al. state that “aphid individual performance did not predict population responses to CO2 and O3,” and they conclude that “elevated CO2 and O3 atmospheres are unlikely to affect C. betulaefoliae populations in the presence of natural enemy communities.” These findings and conclusions are similar to a those of a number of other studies we have reviewed on our website [see Insects (Aphids) in our Subject Index], and they suggest that the changing composition of the atmosphere will have little net effect on aphid-plant interactions in a high-CO2 world of the future.

This whole finding depends on how they are “assessing” the prevalence of the virus. If they are measuring it in relation to ground area (as is common in horticultural research), then an increase in dry plant matter per square metre, due to increased CO2, can be expected to show more virus per square metre, just because there is more plant matter to be infected.

I think I will wait until another independent lab can replicate the results.

I have sent mine. Included reference to
Australia’s caveat on its commitment at
the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, stating,

‘that measures which would have net
adverse economic impacts nationally or
on Australia’s trade competitiveness
would not be implemented in the absence
of similar action by major greenhouse
producing nations.* Actions would be
taken if benefits were realized in
addition to the greenhouse reduction
benefits.’

*Ref at Climate Etc, April 15, Judith
Curry’s U.S. and Chamber of Commerce
Submissions to the House of Reps on
top CO2 emitters,China (No.1) India
(No.3)and Russia (No. 4.)
non commitment.

A mention too of the UN/taxation scam on refrigerants, chloro flouro carbons and the like.

Basically all Greenhouse gases which are taxed savagely in Australia so that a 1kg of refigeratant can cost as much as an airconditioner. In fact I recently replaced two large airconditioners because it was cheaper to buy an fit two new ones than to regas the old ones, which is a huge waste of resources and saves no gas. Presumably this was because they were already filled in China where no such taxes exist. Even the refrigerants are more and more inefficient as they seek to lower the Greenhouse ratings.

The interesting thing is that gases are rated and therefore taxed according to their greenhouse potential relative to CO2, which is set at a half life in the atmosphere of around 83 years. If I am right then, as the physics would indicate absolutely and the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is a mere 12 years, all Greenhouse gases have to drop x7 in rating and dramatically in taxation. Now that would allow us to save a bundle of energy by using more efficient gases and energy savings are worthwhile, not CO2 savings.

When you breathe in, there is only 0.04% CO2 in the air. It hits your 40m2 of wet membrane and what comes out is 25% CO2 and saturated with water. That’s how fast the CO2 exchange can be. Also I am also incensed that anything which comes from a factory is automatically pollution. So an invisible, harmless clear CO2 gas is pollution. No, it is the same stuff which comes from your mouth and the mouths of the other 7,000,000,000 people on the planet and all the animals, fish, birds and insects and all plants at night. All industrial polluters then.

Tdef I think they are having a few problems in trying to reclassify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Just did a quick search on “pollutants in air” and the main culprits are still listed as oxides of nitrogen and sulpur, particulates, carbon monoxide and volatile organics. Hopefully the green nonsense will stop before carbon dioxide is listed alongside carbon tetrachloride, carbon monoxide, cyanide etc !

However, the EPA ruled that today’s higher concentrations are the “unambiguous result of human emissions.” Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases “are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000 years,” the agency said.

…In its decision, the EPA stressed that it considers CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to be pollutants because of their role in propagating climate change, not because of any direct health effects. — Wall Street Journal 2009

As we know, the Green ideologues NEED to label CO2 as a pollutant. This is an ideological position much like the UN definition of the term ‘climate change‘, and one which always preceded scientific validation. It appears the only way they can implement their ‘double benefit’ strategy – confer the label of a pollutant, justifying both the taxation and a putative environmental ‘benefit’.

Also it is easy to be skeptical of their average CO2 concentrations measured from gas trapped in ice cores. What is remarkable is how smooth the data is, which is also the problem.

Warm years would tend to allow CO2 to escape before they are buried or at the very least, to migrate from one layer to the next, removing peaks. On a geological time scale of thousands of years, the current 50% increase in CO2 is a very short term spike. Such spikes may occur frequently but would not be obvious from ice cores due to leaching and thus averaging between adjacent layers. The averaging process removes spikes but to say therefore they do not exist is not justified. If they did, you would not see them given the coarse measurement method. It is very poor science to say something does not happen simply because you cannot see it because of the (time) resolution of your measurement method.

In other words in the last 650,000 years, the current CO2 is higher than average, but that is because it is a (coarse) average. In fact the whole GW farce is based on arguing that anything which is not average, cyclones, tornadoes, storms, droughts, hot days, extreme events are someone’s fault, that the world should have average weather every single year or we should be taxed and punished. Very convenient from the group which wants the money and power, the UN and their accomplices.

Only now with the failure of every prediction are they turning to a thing they call ‘natural variability’? What is that other than something they did not predict and do not understand. Could it be a variability other than annual? An 11 year cycles as in Egypt for the last 1600 years?

There is also the laughable idea that ‘natural variability’ just happens along at the precise time temperature is going up rapidly and exact magnitude and exactly increasing magnitude to make the result indistinguishable from nothing happening. Now what’s the chance of that? What’s the chance nothing is happening at all? Laughable rubbish science. Beware pigs overhead.

Warcroft you are confusing me! It was proven back in 2005 (by computer models and and a well known expert scientist) that rain in eastern Australia is finished. Warragamba dam is probably a dustbowl by now. Whoops, the website is telling me it’s at 89.3% , but that is raw unhomogenized data.

What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.

There should be no target. IPCC models have been shown to not match actual measured global temperatures. CO2 has not been proven to be a significant cause of “global warming”.

What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.

Not having a target will benefit the economy by removing restrictions on businesses regarding reporting and artificially attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unnecessary bureaucracy will be reduced. The environment will benefit from the better growing of plants from increased CO2.

Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?

Remove any restrictions (apart from reasonable safety requirements) on the development and use of uranium and thorium for the development of nuclear power. If CO2 is a problem (it isn’t) then nuclear power will make a large contribution. Remove all subsidies to any energy source, especially to so called “renewable” resources. Abolish any renewable energy targets (RET).

Submissions opened Saturday 28 March 2015. In response to requests by stakeholders, submissions on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target received before 3pm AEST Friday 1 May 2015 will be considered. Any submissions received after 1 May will be included at the discretion of the UNFCCC Taskforce.

When I last looked, the end date was yesterday (April 24), so they’ve extended the response time by a week. My sceptical, even synical, mind, wonders if that is to give them time to overwhelm our on time responses??
I put mine in last week. At two pages, I attacked the “science” of CO2 induced warming and advocated zero as pur emissions target, using the word, and a couple of synonyms in case a “0″ got accidentally homogenised upwards.
I was also disturbed by the fact that the submission site had the UNFCCC logo. I thought it was an Australian Govt request..
Cheers,
Dave B

Why don’t you make a submission anyway, telling Tony that the World needs Australia, to continue setting an example & leading the way with it’s innovative approach to climate and not to give dosh to the UN. Oz. should spend all it’s UN commitments on its own climate programmes. Who else could get better return on investment ?

I understand your reasoning and I don’t mean any offense to Oz or to Aussies. But I do not take it favorably when the rest of the world tries to influence what should be entirely internal U.S. government (or non government) decisions. So I’ll refrain from doing what I don’t appreciate anyone else doing.

In the past it has been so bad as having UK citizens send personal letters to U.S. voters trying to steer the vote to the left. I really resented that. I know it goes on all the time, witness the current scandal over the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of foreign government donations allegedly for favorable treatment. But I don’t like it in any form.

Off Topic wrt this Thread, but while we’re talking about Submissions, note the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines had a close date of mid February, which was then extended out to mid March, then Mid April, and now is at May 4th.

My submissions was the second submission, and by the original close date there was around 7 or 8 submissions.

Now there are 242, and most of them are rabid supporters with pages and pages of lies evidence in support of their all round absolute sheer and utter perfection.

I’m afraid my submission looks like being lost in the noise. You should read some of that bovine waste product.

After looking at a random selection of submissions, and grading them according to a classification scheme which I made up as i went along, I determined that 97% of submissions are against wind turbines. Obviously for reasons of confidentiality, I cannot disclose which submissions I reviewed, and if you try to find out, lawyers may get involved.

I appreciate that you start dismissing any limits on CO2.
Most of the questions seems to anticipate some kind of limitation, and then go on to how much and how it should be done.
It is like discussing the punishment before any crime has been done or proved.

This concept of public submissions seems very odd to me, is the govt really so clueless that they don’t know what to do and need to ask the public, about a highly technical issue? Is this a belated April 1st joke? If not I’d say this makes the Aussie govt look like idiots.

It does though show how vital it is to police climate science and keep it open to all possibilities. A reasonable stance from a govt would be to say “we’re doing nothing because we can’t trust anything that climate science says”.

Another collapse akin to the 2009 Copenhagen talks would kick dealmaking up to national leaders, where it could get ensnared in political bickering.

Those pressures and the memory of Copenhagen, though, have sharpened the resolve of negotiators, Moosa said at a Thursday event hosted by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in Washington, D.C.

Negotiators noted the talks won’t be easy.

“I wouldn’t paint an incredibly rosy international picture,” said Jo Tyndall, the top negotiator for New Zealand. “What dealing with climate change is all about is affecting quite a significant economic transformation.” — Washington Examiner APR 24 2015

A UNFCCC submission process of this nature is one that fulfills the requirement to be seen to consult widely.

When great efforts are made ‘to be seen to do‘, one may be fairly sure that the policies waiting in the implementation wings are likely not only to be monstrous and draconian but inescapably comprehensive.

It is incumbent on all who treasure freedom, democracy and progress to ensure November in Paris is another frigid Green experience, an epic fail altogether much clearer than the travesty of Copenhopeless’.

Electricity should cost more in peak periods, Federal Government white paper says…..

Note that this link is the official electricity market operator here in Australia.

Read the text immediately above the table of costs there.

The official PEAK power period is from 7AM until 10PM.

So electricity should cost more during Peak periods eh!

You know, only during those times when people are actually awake.

The peak power consumption periods of greatest power consumption in the Residential sector are from 6AM until 9AM, you know when people actually wake up and get ready to go to work and school, do their breakfast and the the morning chores, and then from 4PM until 10PM, you know when everyone gets home from work and school, and gets dinner, do the evening chores, etc.

That is peak residential consumption which they want to charge you more for, you, know, normal everyday life.

Tony, I always enjoy your blogs as you have an excellent knowledge regarding electricity production in Australia.
Australians do not want or need smart meters so that we can be charged penalty rates for electricity when we need it most!
All we want is a safe reliable supply that can absorb the power peaks as and when they occur.
We know that his is not too much to expect and can be easily achieved here in Australia with our wealth and knowledge.
Power Stations, whether coal or gas, are fantastic feats of engineering for us all to be proud of!
They serve us well and make our modern lives safe and comfortable.
Regards
Geoffrey Williams
Sydney

‘The vice-chancellor was also asked whether the university had considered the potential for reputational damage to the university from the appointment.

‘Professor Johnson said that Dr Lomborg was not a climate sceptic and is a former member of Greenpeace.

“That went down really well,” dead-panned one person at the meeting.

‘Professor da Silva Rosa, who ran the meeting, said it had gone well because “people asked the tough questions and the VC answered them”, adding that “people who have a sense of disquiet about the appointment were represented”.’

“The UWA Academic Staff Association called the meeting with the vice chancellor, Professor Paul Johnson, to address significant concerns among the university’s 4,000 academics that the centre would tarnish its reputation.”
. . .

Life imitates art!

4,000 v 1 = 97% consensus v 1

Armed only with their certified settled science, 4000 could dismantle Lomborg on the first day, then mock him for the next four years.

Lomborg is not a climate scientist and needs to have s sit down conversation with Carter, Plimer and Salby, so that he can get a broader perspective.

It would be a great coup for our side if Lomborg could be persuaded that CO2 doesn’t have any impact on temperature. Then he should join the group going to Paris.

——-

Good news, a medicine man thinks we are a pariah nation.

‘Australia is emerging as “public enemy number one” of the United Nations climate change negotiations to be held in Paris in December, according to a Nobel laureate of medicine speaking from a sustainability symposium in Hong Kong.’

Good one Jo.
When I first read your opening I thought “She’s got the closing date wrong”, but luckily kept reading the feed back and found there’s been an extension. Do you know when that was announced? And was any reason given?
TonyfromOz has a sobering post at #20, which I read after posting at 14.1.
Cheers,
Dave B

great submission but think of all the bureaucrats & carbon parasites, including NGOs, lawyers, etc your plan would put out of work. surely it’s better just to discourage the small farmer & let Big Agra gobble up all the land:

24 April: Scientific American: To Cut Methane from Cows, Put a Price on Carbon
California’s cap-and-trade system spurs farmers to install biogas digesters
By John Upton and Climate Central
On Thursday, the Obama Administration laid out a 10-point plan for reducing climate pollution that focused on rural areas, including farms and forests. Key among those 10 points was a plan to encourage more farmers to install biogas digesters, and to support 500 more biogas installations at farms during the next decade…
Biogas digesters produce a useable and tradeable commodity—energy—but installations on smaller farms rarely produce enough of it to pay for themselves. In California, a cap-and-trade system that charges polluters a fee for releasing carbon dioxide is helping to close the financial viability gap…
Construction of biodigesters in California starts at around $1.5 million for the smallest farms. Thursday’s announcement by the White House, combined with the continued growth of cap-and-trade systems, should help farmers overcome some of these high costs…
The allowances sell for a little more than $12 per ton of carbon dioxide, with about $1 billion a year in revenue being spent on green projects. Revenues are projected to grow in the coming years, even as the cap on the number of allowances available is shrunk to help the state meet its ambitious climate-protection laws.
But the agricultural and forestry sectors, and methane pollution and ozone-depleting greenhouse gases are not directly regulated by the scheme. So California gives polluters that are regulated by it an option. If they can find a cheaper way of keeping the equivalent of a ton of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, by spending on certain types of forestry, agricultural or industrial projects, then they can use carbon offset credits from those projects instead of allowances to permit the release of up to 8 percent of their pollution…
Farmers work through agents to sell their offset credits. The farmers can build their own biogas systems, or they can farm out the job to specialists. Van Warmerdam does the latter. He leases land to an operator for an undisclosed amount. “We’re diversifying our income,” he said. “It’s worthwhile. There’s no risk to me.”
The operator, Daryl Maas, sells electricity from the burning methane to the local utility. He’s also working with a broker who will sell offset credits produced by the project to Californian polluters. When he operates in Washington state, Maas instead sells such offsets to voluntary programs, such as those that offer to offset the climate impacts of a long flight or a corporation’s operations, though those bring in considerably less cash…
Carbon offsets like those allowed in California are common in cap-and-trade systems, which are rapidly growing in popularity worldwide. But offsets are controversial. Critics question why a farmer like Van Warmerdam should receive public funds for a project that might have been built anyway. Indeed, Van Warmerdam says he had been trying to install such a system for nearly a decade before cap-and-trade began a couple years ago. He was stymied twice — not directly by financial issues, he says, but by problems with contractors. “It never made it to the building stage,” he said.
Two environmental groups, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby and Our Children’s Earth, sued California to try to block the use of offsets, which they argued lacked integrity and could be abused. Another environmental group, the Environmental Defense Fund, which has expressed confidence in the integrity of the cap-and-trade system’s verification system, has been helping California defend itself in court…
A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled against the lawsuit two years ago, pointing to research indicating that fewer than 10 percent of the 8,200 biogas systems that could be installed in the U.S. would be installed without offset credits.
“It is not standard practice to install anaerobic digesters,” Judge Ernest Goldsmith wrote in his ruling. “Cost is the primary barrier to installing digesters and offset credits directly address this problem.” The California State Supreme Court is due to decide whether it will hear an appeal filed by Our Children’s Earth…
California’s cap-and-trade program is set to expire in 2020. Lawmakers are expected to renew it before then, but it’s impossible to say what changes might be introduced along the way.
“You can’t execute a project beyond 2020,” Maas said. “The price is really the biggest question mark. What’s the price of carbon going to be? That’s determined by regulation.”…http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-cut-methane-from-cows-put-a-price-on-carbon/

“A UNFCCC submission process of this nature is one that fulfills the requirement to be seen to consult widely.”

Spot on. This is democracy Agenda 21 style like the tightly stage managed exercise that produced the Roogate farce a few years back.

I don’t have a problem with calling for public comment. I put in a submission. It can be a valuable way to see a diversity of opinion – maybe even a few new ideas. It can also be seen as opening the lobbying machine up for those that can’t afford to pay professional lobbyists. The central problem, as I see it, is the influence of the lobbying process overall. It’s fundamentally undemocratic.

I can’t see that lobbying can be reduced but it can be broadened and made more public. We have the technology to radically open up the political and administrative processes – total transparency unless the personal privacy of individuals is involved – privacy of the citizens, that is, not pollys or bureaucrats. They are public servants and their activities should be public.

I started the survey and short of copy and pasting your responses Joanne I thought I could do no better so I hit your Tip Jar instead . This is in lieu of the New Scientist that I no longer subscribe to – much better value over here. Wish I could cancel my subscription to the ABC … I could give you that too.

I notice Fin is absent in this thread – Fin you there? Maybe I shouldn’t encourage the Troll, but it is entertaining to watch rational reasonable discussion douse the flames of dogma.

What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.

It is my view that there should be no target for mandatory reduction of CO2 emissions in Australia at this time. This view is formed from my reading of an extensive range of source material. It is difficult for me in a short space of time to summarise the process of forming this view, however the best current single source would have to be the recent publication “Climate Change the facts 2014″ which can be found here: http://thefacts2014.ipa.org.au/.
This is not to say that my view may or may not change in the future. If I am presented with compelling scientifically based evidence that CO2 emissions are likely to cause harmful environmental impact I may be inclined to change this view. GCMs in my opinion do not yet qualify as compelling scientific evidence for a catastrophically warming world.

What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.

The impact of having a legislated target is likely to be largely negative for the Australian Economy. There may be some jobs created installing and maintaining renewable energy systems, however, most of these seem to be created outside Australia and we become a net exporter of jobs under this scenario.

I have invented a new type of wind generator and have had great difficulty in progressing this concept in part because of the need for IP protection for a design. This is with the full knowledge that as soon as the idea is known internationally it will be copied and sold without regard to international patent law (unless one has millions/billions of dollars to protect the invention).

I have seen no benefit for the environment at this stage of increasing renewable energy use. In fact it has made energy supply less reliable and shifted the real pollution to China and other manufacturing countries.

Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?

As many “sceptical” scientists such as Prof Bob Carter have pointed out, maintaining a viable Future Fund is likely to be much more effective at dealing with future disasters of whatever cause than expending scarce resources on highly politicised “research” (peer reviewed or not). Research grant funding should not be contingent on having the obligatory statement about “Climate Change” or “Climate Disruption” (whatever that means). Academic appointments to public institutions should not be prejudiced by a “Sceptical” view of “Climate Change”. Indeed scientific scepticism should be a prime requirement for scientific candidates.

It would seem to me to be much more beneficial for the economy, jobs and business to support locally based enterprises in which we as Australians have obvious expertise. I like to point out the decisions that South Korea made decades ago to support a select set of industries with carefully targeted government funding. These were the car manufacturing industry and the manufacture of LCD displays. It is obvious to anyone in developed economies the result of these decisions (Kia, Hyundai and Samsung to name a few). This did not happen by chance.

I would also very much like to see that the ABC be required to adhere to their charter and give a properly balanced view of the real debate on this important issue. It is my strong impression as a frequent user of the ABC services that their treatment of this issue is entirely biased and far from the reasons for it’s formation and origins.

Do you wish to contribute any further information or ideas?

There is much more I could add if I had the time.

Oops -I just saw a typo in my submission – CGMs should be GCMs – oh well ammo for the alarmists

Hi Jo,
f y i … a copy of the 36 pages I mailed to them …
Good Morning Dept. of Prime Minister and Cabinet

The main-stream media of this country (quite a large number of people now refer to them as the “Lame-stream Media!”) – and to a lesser extent, most western countries – is being increasingly corrupted by the renewable industry.

I do not say this lightly, and clearly you can see literally hundreds of examples below that will help to illustrate this point.

Closely related to this wholesale abrogation of duty (bordering of treason) by our “Fourth Estate”, is the absolute lacking of usefulness and credibility by Green policies, and the whole Green movement world-wide is now very much living on “borrowed time”!

Generally I have to confess to having an allergic reaction to generalisations, as they are of course in most cases, generally wrong … However …

All Green members and supporters and voters (both here and abroad), continue to preach that “People, Progress and Profit” are all Enemies of the Planet!!

This is due to Greens policies being more economically reckless than Bernard Madoff’s approx. $50 billion Ponzi scheme, and killing more people than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined!!

All the above consists of many very large claims I know, please see below for proof. …

I don’t say these two things lightly! … Below is a rare view on the Green Policies from someone with a TRULY UN-BIASED VIEW!

Both myself and my family have had many Green Aspects to our lives for DECADES :–

• My late father, Dr David Phillips (along with Marcus Blackmore & Sanitarium Ltd.) were pioneers in the Aust. health food industry in 1970’s & 1980’s — inc. being raised a vegetarian;
• In the early 1980’s my late mother installed incandescent-replacing mini-fluorescent light globes, and a solar hot water heater on our roof;
• Also in the early 1980’s I strongly supported the termination of the Gordon and Franklyn River Dams;
• I “lived the life” of a ” low carbon foot-print ” and used public transport exclusively from 1988 to 1993;
• I raised money and did publicity for The Wilderness Society in the early 1990’s;
• I had a job with a low carbon foot-print, a ‘cabbie’ (taxis run on lpg. … 10% less emissions and 80% less pollutants than petrol) in 1990 to 1997;
• I have been a member and supporter of the Karawatha Forest Protection Society for the last five years;
• My late mother selflessly lived without having a car, from the early 1990′s to 2010 — and, in addition to all of this —
• For most of the last 30 years I have enjoyed participating in a sport which has a very small carbon foot-print, Ultra-Marathon running (pardon the pun)!

- And yet, thanks to the ‘under-lauded’ public service of a few insightful individuals (esp. Terry McCrann, Andrew Bolt, Joanne Nova, Professor Ian Plimer and Prof. Bob Carter), I had the epiphany in late 2009 that …

“I had been living a lie”!!

- And yet, thanks to the ‘too-little-lauded’ public service of a few insightful individuals (esp. Terry McCrann, Andrew Bolt, and Senators; Joyce, Xenophon and Fielding), I had the epiphany in late 2009 that “I had been living a lie”!!

[The rest of the comment is in the attached PDF 200k -- Jo It was a little too long for one comment! ]

Q2, Answer 2:
Australia’s overall standard of living would immensely benefit. Australian citizens would benefit from universal access to electricity. Transcontinental Australia would benefit from improved crops, improved cropland, public transportation, improved communications and better education for all citizens.

Q3, Answer 3:
Australia will be happy to sell carbon units to any unfortunate countries foolish enough to restrict or constrain their energy policies.

I will try to find time to make a submission in the next day or two. In the mean-time, I sent this today to the Vice-Chancellor of UQ:

Dear Professor Hoj,

I completed some post-graduate studies at the University of Queensland in the early nineties. I was thankful then for the opportunity to study in an environment in which creativity and critical thinking were encouraged.

Recently I enrolled in the online course Denial 101x organised by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and others. I hoped that this might be an opportunity to explore the evidence for dangerous anthropogenic climate change, and to consider differences of opinion within the scientific community.

Sadly, this is not the case. The course organisers begin with name calling (anyone who disagrees with them is a ‘denier’), move on to mischaracterising the debate (it is not about climate denial, whatever that could be, but about the extent of human influence on global climate, whether that influence is negative or positive, and if negative, the cost of attempts at prevention versus mitigation), and move on to straw man arguments.

Disagreement at any point appears to be verboten.

One of the videos posted is of psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky claiming that anyone who opposes the “consensus” must be driven by paranoid, conspiracy theory thinking.

I posted the following comment on that video:

“I am an idiot. Clearly the way I thought science works; making observations, forming hypotheses, making predictions, testing theory and predictions against reality, is completely wrong. What makes for progress in science is agreeing with the status quo.

However I take some consolation from the fact that Richard Feynman must also have been an idiot, as was Thomas Kuhn.

More disappointing is that many of those I thought of as heroes; Ignaz Semmelweiss, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Planck, Barry Marshall and Robert Warren, anyone who opposed Lysenkoism, were not heroes at all. They were deniers, conspiracy theorists.

Or Lewandowsky could be wrong. It’s a tough one.”

That comment was removed within an hour of being posted.

I have no objection to Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky or anyone else having a platform from which to express their views. I would object if they did not. But universities, and surely the University of Queensland with its proud history of research and learning, are not meant to be cosy echo chambers where currently popular dogmas can be repeated without challenge, and where anyone who thinks critically is insulted and excluded.

I urge you not just to allow, but to encourage, genuine debate on this issue, perhaps by inviting some well-known Australian scientists to contribute to a similar course in which the evidence can be presented and discussed in an open way. David Evans, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Murray Salby, and Jennifer Marohasy are just some of those who spring to mind.

Peter, censoring of viewpoints would be diametrically opposed to UQ Policy – I’d complain long and hard to the VC that this behaviour is Unscientific and Unjustifiable, and that Cook ET. AL. should be carpeted forthwith for their blatant disrespect for students viewpoints.

As students of the university you have the right to use official complaint channels.

A welcome initiative and I hope they move quickly but the terms of reference seem to be missing one critical issue: Regardless of data fiddling, can you ever scientifically justify using met bureau thermometer measurements to get 0.1˚C accuracy, let alone compare measurements over decades to a century. That was never their purpose.

Researchers at Duke University say global warming in not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Looking at 1,000 years of temperature records, researchers found that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of just a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates. Researchers said that variability could be caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, or other natural factors.

As such, they say trends over just a 10-year period do not show much about long-term warming the Earth can expect to experience over a 100-year period.

Note that there is a quite long supporting document that expands these points – I have taken a different approach, Australia “Politically” needs to set a target, that’s just a reality of life, but since we are one of the largest Nett Sinks on the Planet and given that just the INCREASE in our Carbon Dioxide Sinking with the CO2 change from 360PPM to 400PPM is four times our total emissions Australia can reasonably afford to set a target that is anything up to about 2GT per annum (4 times our current emission). I have therefore proposed an emission increase, but less than the additional sequestration we have contributed since 1990 (Maintaining us in increasing Nett Sequestration territory). At a 1.5GT target (3 times current emission) we are at Nett ZERO emission compared with 1990.

I make it clear in the supporting document that if warming is happening, it’s small ( order of 1 deg per doubling) and therefore there is about a thousand years before there is any real worry. Given that then it’s probably wise to make energy efficiency improvements where they have a cost benefit (other than on CO2), and do things which turn CO2 into food and Oxygen just like nature intended, such as increase orchard cropping relative to small crops (Using tax incentives that work like the R&D one rather than direct subsidies) – or potentially use the CO2 benefits to help justify nation building that you are going to do anyway, build out the north, rail electrification (That is, when you build something make it more energy efficient that what it replaces). I have also suggested the removal of obstructions to small business involvement in electronics through the easing of the regulatory burdens (EMC, Energy Efficiency, Electrical certification testing ) as being worthy of consideration in facilitating innovation in energy efficiency.

Some of you might not like my view – but I think it is politically tenable. The government does not want to go to Paris without a justifiable (in warmist terms) position. It can only unwind this slowly.

==Submit your views==
What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed?
In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g.
1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why
the suggested target is preferred.:
Summary
Estimates of warming from CO2 are falling, most likely between 1 and 1.5
degrees per doubling with 50% of that attributable to man – at least 1000
years to reach 2 degrees of warming
Up to 2 degrees of warming to be beneficial (According to the IPCC)
No definitive evidence that global storm energy, rainfall or drought are
affected by warming
Carbon dioxide sequestration rates are increasing due to CO2 fertilisation
Food and Oxygen levels are dependent on CO2 levels
The Kyoto regime disadvantages large countries with small populations like
Australia that make huge sequestration contributions.
Australia’s Fuel Excise represents a carbon tax of over $300 per tonne that
already has been imposed, no further taxes are warranted and this excise
should be reduced

Conclusion: Australia’s emission target MUST be based on Nett Emission
(actually Nett Sequestration) taking into account increased sinking capacity
changes due to CO2 fertilisation of forests and farmlands. It is suggested
that modest increases in emissions can be sustained given our position as one
of the largest world carbon dioxide sinks.
What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this
question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs,
business and on the environment.:
Summary:
• Taxes, subsidies and penalties to force mitigation are regressive,
enormously expensive (shown to cost 173 Trillion dollars per annum or 2.2
times world GDP to reach zero emission). They drive up costs for business and
make us uncompetitive internationally – they are NOT to be used.
• Other mitigation programs can be undertaken that are essentially
harmless, particularly by shifting land use toward high sequestration
activities.
• CO2 increases ironically cause existing sinks to absorb more CO2, over
the last 20 years far more quickly than emissions have grown.
• Australia should attempt to take advantage of increased yield potential
of crops due to CO2 fertilisation
• Funding saved from inefficient subsidies and taxes can be reinvested into
economy expanding activity or measures that produce measurable human welfare
benefits.

Conclusion: By tailoring direct action measures toward natural sequestration
measures and scaling back inefficient penalties, green tape, and subsidies,
meaningful reductions can be achieved while expanding economic activity and
energy use. Government must studiously avoid penalties and compliance
green-tape trails as a means to enforce compliance as costs get passed
through the supply chain impacting on ordinary Australians.

Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct
action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020
target and why?
Summary
1. There are a number of ways to achieve meaningful abatement, while at the
same time delivering benefits to the community or the economy.
2. Focus on the whole outcome rather than just the ideological desires.
3. Avoid activities which have proven detrimental.
4. Look properly at the unintended consequences of any measure. Consider
whether the target of the measure is morally defensible or in itself
sustainable.
5. Reducing CO2 to 1990, 1950 or 1850 levels may no longer be appropriate
because it is no longer 1990, 1950, or 1850. Populations have expanded and
become dependent on the new CO2 levels.
6. Avoid measures that penalise the community, are shown to lead to energy
poverty, reduce climate change resilience, or create human deaths or animal
welfare disasters.

Conclusion: The government needs to take advice from the whole public and not
just so-called Climate Experts promoting the global warming orthodoxy. Policy
measures need to emerge from all sectors of the community. Those sceptical of
dangerous global warming need to be heard – they are in my experience very
patriotic and have some great ideas for advancing Australia.

Do you wish to contribute any further information or ideas?
The government needs to step back and take a good look at the situation.
1. Has there been global warming since 1850 – yes but only about 0.8deg C
with at most just 50% (0.4 deg C) attributable to mankind, at this rate it
will take 1000 years to reach 2 degrees warming
2. How clear is it that mankind has caused the 50% the IPCC claims – Not very
clear at all
3. Does CO2 have other benefits to society that might outweigh warming
concerns – Yes, it is an essential component of the atmosphere, the source
of most of the oxygen and food on the earth.
4. Is mankind dependent on the higher CO2 levels we have generated – Yes
indeed we are
5. Are there more pressing concerns – yes there are, people welfare – the UN
surveyed almost a million people and concern for climate change came last.
6. What are the risks of a cooling crisis – great, cooling poses a much
greater risk than warming, the 0.8 degree global difference in temp in the
Little ice age caused the death of half the population of Europe, and low CO2
partial pressure at the time (270PPM) probably contributed to that outcome.
7. Could it warm harmlessly – yes, even with 5 degrees of warming if the
warming is concentrated where populations aren’t (at the poles, or over
oceans or in deserts) or the warming is seen in minimums or winter then even
large amounts of warming would be harmless – for example min=0 max = 40 ave
= 20 (Melbourne) and min = 11 max=39 ave = 25 (Darwin) represents a 5 degree
average difference but the CLIMATE is less extreme in the warmer and falls
totally within the range of the cooler climate. To understand any warming we
need to understand exactly WHERE and WHEN it will warm to say if it is
dangerous. On earth warmer climates become more tropical, and generally far
more productive for man.
8. What impact does repricing ENERGY to defray CO2 emissions have – It causes
Energy Poverty which has the effect ironically of making mankind much LESS
resilient to climate change in either direction. If you are really trying to
hedge against climate change then it is inappropriate to try to do it by
making the one commodity we use to make it possible to live in the coldest or
hottest climates and that we use to produce food in cold places, and keep
food fresh in hot places expensive!

My feeling is that we need to have a proper national discussion about this
including EVERY point of view. The fact is that while global warming is
probably happening to some degree, it is absolutely NOT the problem it was
once thought to be. We should stop pretending that it is, and start a
national conversation about balancing action on climate change properly
against other priorities.
Do you wish to upload a supporting document? If yes, please upload your
supporting document below.:

Q.1 What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed?

Australia should completely forget about CO2. what it really needs is investment in vegetation, trees, on a large scale.
So !! go crazy with CO2

Q2. What would the impact of that target be on Australia?

Australia would look better on Google Earth. Right now, it is brown and bald.
It needs to look green, any green will do, and people should have the choice of living inland. what’s with the sand ?
Plant trees, crops, or something, irrigate them , and keep creating CO2 which plants love.

Q3 Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?

I agree “We need to get the science right before we take any more expensive action.”
But first, Australia needs to pull the plug on the Climate modelers.
They do not know anything, nada !!
plus (Navier and Stokes) remains unsolved .. so forget Climate modelers.
Yes , Do more research science, but who cares , the planet’s climate is changing, and it is going to do what it likes.

With all the money saved from defunding IPCC, invest in huge powerful tug boats (Diesel preferred). Drag those big ass icebergs from Antarctic over to Australia and extract the water. They are only gonna melt into the ocean anyway.

Q4 Do you wish to contribute any further information or ideas?

Recognize and respect Scientists
If you do not know what a scientist looks like .. watch Gavin Schmidt for 10 seconds
Reference: Jo is a real Scientist